MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE BOARD'S DECISION 
                    GRANTED IN PART:  December 13, 1996
                                                           

                                GSBCA 13419

                     MORSE DIESEL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     Brian McGovern and Elaine M. Moss of McCarthy, Leonard,
Kaemmerer, Owen, Laderman and Lamkin, Chesterfield, MO, counsel for
Appellant.

     Robert C. Smith, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DEVINE, BORWICK, and WILLIAMS.

DEVINE, Board Judge.                                     

     Respondent has filed a motion to correct what it perceives to
be errors in the facts found in the Board's opinion of October 31,
l996.  Respondent says that the directive to begin the "load and
go" work of removing contaminated material was denominated PCO 2,
rather than P-3, and dated September 15, 1994, rather than
September 3, l994, as the opinion states.  Respondent is correct on
these points and the opinion is hereby amended to conform.

     Respondent also says that the work directed by PCO 2 was not
the same as the work for which the the Government sought a price
quote under Proposal Request P-3.  On this point respondent is
wrong.  Respondent's idea was apparently generated by a
parenthetical phrase appearing in the language of the PDL which
reads: "[y]ou are directed to proceed with the work required by the
General Services Administration Proposal Request P-3 (see modified
scope below) . . . at a price to be determine [sic] later basis not
to exceed $1 million."  We take the parenthetical phrase to refer
to the fairly detailed directions which follow it, dealing with
excavation slope angles and a method of covering hazardous waste
slope faces, items not dealt with in Proposal Request P-3.  We do
not find it to be a modification of any of the terms of P-3 itself,
which sets out the work to be accomplished by the PDL.  We are
strengthened in this view by the later statement "This
authorization is issued on the above basis [as a PDL] in order not
to delay your proceeding with the work during the preparation of
your proposal."  It is clear from the record that the work of the
PDL was to be that set out in Proposal Request P-3, which included
the remediation of the entire site, including not only all of the
so-called "hot spots," but also the suspected but untested areas. 
It is also clear that work under the PDL would go on until a
definitive agreement was arrived at, or, as happened here with the
Sevenson process, a better way to do the work was found.

                                 Decision

     For the reasons stated the motion is granted with respect to
the challenged dates but is otherwise DENIED.




                                                          
                                        DONALD W. DEVINE
                                        Board Judge
We Concur:


                                                                  
ANTHONY S. BORWICK                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
Board Judge                             Board Judge